What consistent ethos unites all of the beliefs of the GOP

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 34
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
For the libertarians, it's "small government", which they argue leads to, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".  This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues.  They are pro weed, anti gun control, anti ICE, anti war, and anti Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others".

For leftists, it's "anti pain" (even if democrats don't realize this).  This justifies their stance on weed, gun control, immigration, wars, healthcare and other issues.  They are pro weed, pro gun control, anti ICE, anti war (at least when America does it; but sending foreign aid to Ukraine helps reduce their pain), and pro Medicare for all (because all of these beliefs are consistent with, "we should minimize pain".

The conservatives have no consistent ethos. 

They stand for, "small government" unless it's immigration, the police, or military spending (strangely enough, conservatives want a higher military budget while not funding Ukraine's military even though America's military is almost exclusively for other country's goals if they are allies with the US), or for LGBT freedoms.

They stand for, "life" while being against Medicare for all, gun control, or an open border policy (which saves lives).

They stand for, "American tradition in 1980" unless it's Roe V Wade (an American tradition for 50 years).  No matter what year conservatives think is the ideal year to base American policy off of, there will be SOME reality present in that year that conservatives will be opposed too.  Any time before 1980 in the US had very high income taxes (unless the time was early enough to where segregation or slavery was reality, which conservatives SHOULD oppose).  So no time period before 1980 has conservative ideals 100%.  After 1973 (but before 2022), Roe V Wade was the law (and conservatives don't like Roe V Wade).  Since all time is either after 1973 or before 1980 (or both), conservatives don't consistently stand for American tradition.

They stand for, "Chirstian tradition", which is code for, "Bible law" or, "Theocracy".  The bible advocates open borders nearly all times immigrants are mentioned (What Does the Bible Say About Immigration? (openbible.info) contains dozens of pro open border bible quotes).  The bible also advocates that loving money/capitalism is bad (What Does the Bible Say About Wealth? (openbible.info)).  The bible also has some anti gay quotes (25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say? (biblestudytools.com)).  The bible says that people that have gay sex should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).  I think ALL of these positions (except immigration) are horrible positions and the conservatives believe that at least SOME of these positions are horrible positions.  But if conservatives were consistently pro bible in their policies, I would agree with basically none of it, but at least I can respect it (like I only agree with democrats about 47% of the time, but at least I RESPECT their ideology).

They stand for, "Everything Trump says, I support" unless it comes to Trump telling his followers to get boosted against COVID.  The vast majority of Trump supporters aren't boosted (and I think this is fine since I don't like vaccine mandates).  But then don't act like Trump is so smart that you agree with everything he says, because he told you to get boosted and you claimed he was a sell out.

So I will tag some conservatives and ask them to define what their party consistently stands for.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Eh, its difficult to say.

For example, Bible commands "increase of life + not resisting evil".

Therefore, a Christian has a choice to either act to save lives or to not act at all and therefore not resist evil.

Its a perfect mix, since for some people in some cases saving lives is too difficult of a burden to be followed.

However, right wing policies are based on popular support and while partially based on the Bible, they most certainly arent entirely based on the Bible.

They are simply based on democratic choice of right wing voters.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I dont think there needs to be just 1 standard.

I think there can be two of equal value.

For example, "increasing happiness + decreasing pain".

A person, when faced with situation where he has to choose between the two, can choose any of the two as they are considered equally important.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Bible commands "increase of life + not resisting evil".
Where in the bible does it say that?

right wing policies are based on popular support
Many policies the right advocates for are not based on popular support, as in general, left wing policies are more popular (abortion, background checks, immigration).

For example, "increasing happiness + decreasing pain".

A person, when faced with situation where he has to choose between the two, can choose any of the two as they are considered equally important.
What's the difference between increasing happiness and decreasing pain?  Democrats are for WANTED pain (this is why nobody protests against people running the 1600 m, because that's WANTED pain because all mile runners consent).  But UNWANTED pain (forced pregnancy, loss of a kid's life from a mass shooting, separated families because of deportations) the left is consistently against.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,231
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
No. Bible commands the death of gays.
Where in the Bible does it command the death of gays?

What year was the Bible written?

How many times has the Bible been rewritten and reinterpreted?

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Where in the bible does it say that?
One of the 10 commandments is thou shall not kill.

One of the first commands God gave to humans was "multiply and fill the Earth".

So the conclusion from that is: "increase of life" is the standard of the Bible.

The New Testament says: "Dont resist the evil doer", "Dont seek revenge", and repeats "Do not kill".

"Do not kill" has meaning of increase of life, since not increasing life is equal to killing life that would have existed if not killed.

So with "increase of life" and "do not resist the evil doer", it follows that Christians, when faced with situations where they have to choose, can choose one of those two.

Bible matthew 5:39

Bible Romans 12:19
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No. Bible commands the death of gays.
That was not said by anybody on this thread.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The commandment, "increase life" and, "do not kill", as long as they don't contradict each other, it would be similar to saying your ethos is, "freedom" and, "small government" because the smaller your government is, the more free you are.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Many policies the right advocates for are not based on popular support
Sorry, I meant to say there "on popular support of right wing voters".

What's the difference between increasing happiness and decreasing pain?
Well, for example, not giving birth to children would eliminate all pain those children would feel, but it would also eliminate all happiness. Giving birth increases pain for those children who are born, but also increases their happiness.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, I meant to say there "on popular support of right wing voters".
What does it mean to be right wing then?  Democrats say what is popular with their voters, but it wouldn't matter unless they had some sort of consistent theme (anti pain).  In order to convince a democrat that abortion should be banned, you would have to prove that abortion causes more unwanted pain than banning abortion.  Anti pain is the consistent theme of the democratic party. What is the consistent theme of the GOP?
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,231
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
That was not said by anybody on this thread.
It was said on another thread by Best Korea

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is the consistent theme of the GOP?
I dont think there is one.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,231
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
One of the first commands God gave to humans was "multiply and fill the Earth".
So any woman who can’t have a child should be killed, right? Including old women?

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
So any woman who can’t have a child should be killed
I dont think that would increase life.
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,231
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont think that would increase life.
Tell me how killing gay people would increase life then.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 272
Posts: 7,873
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
@Roosevelt

Tell me how killing gay people would increase life then
It wouldnt. I think its wrong to kill gays.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,359
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Guns.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 567
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
The Right Wing in general only unites against things, not for things.

They stand against freedom, happiness and equal chances in life for all.

I am indeed generalising. Not all of their stances are against that. Instead, being against that is what unites them as an overall political formation.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Money, I guess. Why would they be speaking out as incoherently like this if not to please who gives them money simultaneously?
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,231
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
It wouldnt. I think it’s wrong to kill gays.
You just posted the Bible commands the death of gays. That is a lie of course, but you believe that’s what the Bible says and you agree with everything in the Bible because you believe it to be the word of God.



Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
I like that there was a hot tag with my name!

Thank you.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I like that there was a hot tag with my name!
Shutup bigot.

(just getting it out before the crackdown)

11 days later

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So if the right is defined by being pro gun, then someone can be pro gun (to whatever extent the GOP agrees too) and pro choice up until the moment of birth, pro booster mandates, pro war with Russia, anti ICE, pro maximum wage, pro Affirmative Action, believing that transwomen are women, and a whole host of other left wing ideas, but because they are right wing on guns, they would be a republican (even though most people would not call that person a republican).
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,359
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not sure that a consistent ethos is the same as a definition.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
What would the difference be?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,193
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RationalMadman
The Right Wing in general only unites against things, not for things.

They stand against freedom, happiness and equal chances in life for all.
Yes, this is why AI will eventually eliminate them.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Cah you define the consistent ethos of the GOP?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,359
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well.

"A constant ethos that unites all beliefs".

Suggests a singular factor that would represent all factors that define the GOP.

So, not necessarily the gun itself, but the second amendment.

Though one could also say that the gun is the constant factor of the second amendment.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,312
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So, not necessarily the gun itself, but the second amendment.
So if someone was pro 2nd amendment and left wing on all other issues, would they be a conservative?  No; they would be a socialist.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,359
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well.

An individual can be anything they choose to be labelled.

A pro-gun lefty minded righty, or a anti-gun righty minded lefty.

Neither of which are necessarily relative to your question of an ethos that is representative of the GOP.